Very well then. Perhaps Feather and forzamilan should not have accused you of trolling. Of course, some of your statements were preposterous, or at least thats how it appeared to them. I would be impressed if you would act with restraint when faced with statements that you consider to be preposterous.

Click to expand...

qindarka: I respect your words. I will try to not using insulting words. There is only ONE problem: It's name is Dan Lobb...

But isn't there a difference here? The imaginary person here had an opinion that may be incorrect. In this example the person thought Federer's most powerful shot was his backhand and that was the shot that hit the most winners. So don't you want to help him with the knowledge of tennis and about Federer?

If some wrote that Federer wasn't a great mover I might write that Federer was widely considered to be one of the all time great movers. Is that disrespecting a person or just trying to help a person?

Click to expand...

But wouldn't also want to help BobbyOne with his top 10 flawed list about players' longevity? That's even worse than arche3's opinion about Roger's BH. Yet, you were all over arche3 in another thread but openly support BobbyOne's opinion(which no one agree his list).

But wouldn't also want to help BobbyOne with his top 10 flawed list about players' longevity? That's even worse than arche3's opinion about Roger's BH. Yet, you were all over arche3 in another thread but openly support BobbyOne's opinion(which no one agree his list).

Click to expand...

TMF, Longevity was only a part of the criteria I used for my list!

I yet hope that a few posters or readers agree with my lists, at least approximately...

Overall I agree with you but to be honest I thought Rosewall was clearly inferior to Connors in 1974 and it didn't help that I felt at that point that the style of Rosewall did not match up well at that point with Connors. Add that the matches did take a lot out of him and you got the slaughters. Laver matched up better at that point because I believe his strong serve allowed him to take the net more than Rosewall against Connors although Laver in 1975 (challenge match) was also inferior to Connors.

But wouldn't also want to help BobbyOne with his top 10 flawed list about players' longevity? That's even worse than arche3's opinion about Roger's BH. Yet, you were all over arche3 in another thread but openly support BobbyOne's opinion(which no one agree his list).

Click to expand...

To be fair to my opinion I said fed bh is goat. I know his fh is even more goat than his goat bh.
Just that his bh is more goat than Laver bh. That's all.

Do you realize that Nadal is pretty much younger than Federer and has possibly more top years to come??

Click to expand...

and do you realize that nadal being younger than federer is consistently closer to his best/prime in the past 2-3 years ..... which is one of the main reasons why he's been better than federer in that time-period ?

besides we were talking about level of play ...... what exactly has nadal done that shows convincingly that his level of play is superior to that of federer's , off clay ...

or for that matter same for djoker ( except maybe on the slow courts of the AO these days )

and nadal is an early bloomer ....... we'll see how long his career goes ...

You're well aware that it's much harder to maintain longevity at the top of an individual sport like tennis when the game has become so much more physical and the fitness demands are greater now than in previous eras.

Hence we will never again have guys like Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall who played into their 40s at a high level. This doesn't mean that later greats are lacking in longevity compared to these guys, however.

The better way to look at longevity is to look at players within a certain generation and assess their longevity compared to their peers. In this instance, I would say that Agassi, who played to 36 (and made a US Open final at 35) had comparable longevity to Rosewall, who played to around 44 (and made Wimbledon/US Open finals at 39).

Similarly if Federer plays at a high level until he is 35, I will consider him, in the context of his era, to have achieved comparable longevity to Rosewall. Consider how all the other top players of Fed's era, bar Hewitt, have now retired - and yet he is still sitting as Wimbledon champion and No 2 in the world.

Oh and one more thing...........no man who has a 0-4 record in Wimbledon finals can be GOAT. So please remove Rosewall from equal first in your list.

The pertinent point is slowing down of Wimbledon. Rafa plays five setters with absolutely nobodies in second or third round of Wimbledon. He struggles when the grass is relatively fast in the first week. Had it been old grass, I doubt he would have made all those finals..

I read Rafa's biography. He describes about his match with Federer. He says that Roger has a more powerful weapon than him : serve. That was his main concern in the fifth set. He knew he had an edge in the rallies. That explains how much slowing down of grass helped him and put Federer at a disadvantage.

Federer didn't have the benefit of Sampras to play on fast US Open and fast Wimbledon. He literally had to struggle for each point. That too with players who are in their prime. We all saw what happened when Roger played Djokovic at Cincinnati this year.. It's not like these guys don't know about these disadvantages that Federer face but they pretend to ignore

Click to expand...

yeah, this .......

djokovic @ this year's wimbledon was still unable to keep up with the quick-strike tennis of federer even though federer's diminished reflexes were clearly showing ....

You underrate the important fact of the current racquets. Give Federer a wood racquet and you will be astonished how good Newcombe and Roche (two excellent claycourters!) would fare against Roger.

Click to expand...

federer >>> newk/roche on clay or slow HC , quite a bit better on any kind of HC for that matter..... regardless of equipment ...they might get occasional win here and there , but federer would dominate them easily

I LOL'ed at this .....especially in a post involving newk .... federer's BH is so much better than newk's it isn't funny !

federer's BH is a very good BH, with crazy variety (one of the most versatile ones, if not the most versatile one ) ...... yes, has problems in dealing with high balls to it ( so do many 1-H BHs ) and can be inconsistent with it at times ( those times were rare in his peak ).......

But when in form, he's outclassed almost every other baseliner in BH to BH on many occasions, every one of them - agassi, safin, djoker, murray, nalbandian ....... this isn't to say its better, just that its not that far behind ....

its only nadal on slow, high bouncing surfaces who was able to make a dent consistently @ his prime....... otherwise, most others tried and failed, miserably at times - including agassi, hewitt, nalbandian etc ......

even nadal on the low bouncing surfaces @ the YEC, got ripped apart multiple times by federer's BH, barely able to make a dent on it , a grand total of 1 set in 4 matches there ......

what exactly are you trying to prove by mentioning names like rosewall, gonzalez, newk & roche ?

gonzalez exited his prime long before newk/roche hit theirs .....even rosewall was past his best before newk/roche hit their primes ...

and rosewall's prime coincided with a weak era b/w that of gonzales/hoad and that of laver ? get it ?

coming back to the modern era,

nadal was already in the scene by 2005 btw .....djokovic by 2007

agassi was playing a high level of tennis in 2004-05

you also had guys like nalbandian, davydenko, coria etc in the mix

and do you realize that nadal being younger than federer is consistently closer to his best/prime in the past 2-3 years ..... which is one of the main reasons why he's been better than federer in that time-period ?

besides we were talking about level of play ...... what exactly has nadal done that shows convincingly that his level of play is superior to that of federer's , off clay ...

or for that matter same for djoker ( except maybe on the slow courts of the AO these days )

and nadal is an early bloomer ....... we'll see how long his career goes ...

Click to expand...

abmk, I mentioned those players because all of them (and many more greats) were opponents of Laver. Laver had tougher competition than Federer had in his prime

You're well aware that it's much harder to maintain longevity at the top of an individual sport like tennis when the game has become so much more physical and the fitness demands are greater now than in previous eras.

Hence we will never again have guys like Tilden, Gonzales, Rosewall who played into their 40s at a high level. This doesn't mean that later greats are lacking in longevity compared to these guys, however.

The better way to look at longevity is to look at players within a certain generation and assess their longevity compared to their peers. In this instance, I would say that Agassi, who played to 36 (and made a US Open final at 35) had comparable longevity to Rosewall, who played to around 44 (and made Wimbledon/US Open finals at 39).

Similarly if Federer plays at a high level until he is 35, I will consider him, in the context of his era, to have achieved comparable longevity to Rosewall. Consider how all the other top players of Fed's era, bar Hewitt, have now retired - and yet he is still sitting as Wimbledon champion and No 2 in the world.

Oh and one more thing...........no man who has a 0-4 record in Wimbledon finals can be GOAT. So please remove Rosewall from equal first in your list.

Click to expand...

Phoenix1983, If the physical of the game is now so much stronger is debatable.

I will not remove Rosewall from his place. I would have thought that I and others have long enough explained why Rosewall did not win at Wimbledon.

I woun't explain it once more. It's your -easy-task to find the answer...

federer >>> newk/roche on clay or slow HC , quite a bit better on any kind of HC for that matter..... regardless of equipment ...they might get occasional win here and there , but federer would dominate them easily

I LOL'ed at this .....especially in a post involving newk .... federer's BH is so much better than newk's it isn't funny !

federer's BH is a very good BH, with crazy variety (one of the most versatile ones, if not the most versatile one ) ...... yes, has problems in dealing with high balls to it ( so do many 1-H BHs ) and can be inconsistent with it at times ( those times were rare in his peak ).......

But when in form, he's outclassed almost every other baseliner in BH to BH on many occasions, every one of them - agassi, safin, djoker, murray, nalbandian ....... this isn't to say its better, just that its not that far behind ....

its only nadal on slow, high bouncing surfaces who was able to make a dent consistently @ his prime....... otherwise, most others tried and failed, miserably at times - including agassi, hewitt, nalbandian etc ......

even nadal on the low bouncing surfaces @ the YEC, got ripped apart multiple times by federer's BH, barely able to make a dent on it , a grand total of 1 set in 4 matches there ......

Click to expand...

Federer may very well be better than Nadal indoors but I do also wonder if a partial reason is that Nadal is worn out by the end of the year. It's really not an excuse because Federer's style is so smooth that he's less worn out but I would be curious what would happen if they played an important indoor match let's say around May or June. Anyone check the record for Nadal and Federer indoors around the middle of the year? I doubt if they have played any matches around that time since few indoor matches are played nowadays. I can't check now because I have some work to take care of.

One think Federer does have in common with Rosewall is that both were ultra smooth strokers and moved very well with great footwork. I think that helps tremendously in prolonging a career because of the lesser wear and tear. Gonzalez was along those lines also. And all of these guys played a long time and accomplished a lot. I worry if Nadal can last with his style. Djokovic, while smoother imo than Nadal also plays a very grinding game and you also wonder if that will wear him down early.

I will not remove Rosewall from his place. I would have thought that I and others have long enough explained why Rosewall did not win at Wimbledon.

Click to expand...

Presumably you mean because he missed many years of opportunity? Of course, if everyone had played at Wimbledon, he would have had to face Hoad, Gonzales et al every year so no guarantee he would have won it in any case, but that's not the point...

The point is that in the Wimbledon finals he did reach, he had a 0-4 record. I simply cannot accept that someone who has such a record in the final of the game's biggest tournament can be GOAT. Irrespective of whether he would have won in other years he was banned.

If you are GOAT, you win the biggest matches at the biggest venues. Of course even the greatest players can lose to other greats in finals, but to reach 4 Wimbledon finals and not win a single one....you simply cannot call such a man GOAT. I don't care what else he achieved in his career...

Here's his record in the years he played
2006-2-2
2007-2-2
2009-0-3
2010-4-1

Total-8-8

Now it's possible he wasn't worn out but just played super tough opponents and just doesn't play well indoors. However he has lost to guys you think he should beat in Ferrer, Davydenko, Soderling, Tsonga and ....... drum roll James Blake.

Presumably you mean because he missed many years of opportunity? Of course, if everyone had played at Wimbledon, he would have had to face Hoad, Gonzales et al every year so no guarantee he would have won it in any case, but that's not the point...

The point is that in the Wimbledon finals he did reach, he had a 0-4 record. I simply cannot accept that someone who has such a record in the final of the game's biggest tournament can be GOAT. Irrespective of whether he would have won in other years he was banned.

If you are GOAT, you win the biggest matches at the biggest venues. Of course even the greatest players can lose to other greats in finals, but to reach 4 Wimbledon finals and not win a single one....you simply cannot call such a man GOAT. I don't care what else he achieved in his career...

Click to expand...

Phoenix,

Let's be fair, Rosewall was a teen when he lost his first two finals and 35 and 39 when he lost the last two. In the Open Era along Rosewall won the French Open, two Australian Opens and one US Open. That's pretty big tournaments won on big stages. He also won the WCT championships in 71 and 72 over Laver and that essentially was a big time major. Rosewall was born in 1934. The open era started in 1968.

In the Wimbledon final of 1970 he lost in five sets to John Newcombe on grass. Newk was perhaps the best grass player in the world. In 1974 he just got destroyed by Jimmy Connors at his best but he did defeat Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in that tournament to reach the final.

The odds are very high that Rosewall imo would have won at least one Wimbledon in the years he was dominant. No one can prove it of course but I believe there was great chance.

Sometime I do think this stuff about not winning a tournament is overrated. I think the important thing is that great players prove that they can win and be very strong on all surfaces. Certainly Rosewall has more than proven he can win on grass.

Federer is for example a super clay court player as is Novak Djokovic. Federer has won one French but would he be any less a player if he never won the French? Don't think so. I think Djokovic is a super clay court player. I would not hold it against Djokovic if he never won the French.

Look at how many years it took Martina Navratilova to finally win the US Open. But given the extra opportunities she finally won it. Rosewall didn't get that chance as did Pancho Gonzalez by the way.

Kiki's going to get me for this but Jan Kodes won Wimbledon, Rosewall did not, does that make Kodes a better player or a better pressure player than Rosewall?

Federer may very well be better than Nadal indoors but I do also wonder if a partial reason is that Nadal is worn out by the end of the year.

Click to expand...

There's absolutely no maybe about it, Fed is just plain better than Nadal indoors, disregarding the lopsided H2H in Fed's favour in those conditions, Fed has 20 indoor titles to Nadal's one and 6 YEC titles to Nadal's one final.

Now regarding their encounters indoors, yes Nadal might have done better if they played in the middle of the year but I sincerely doubt the final outcome of those matches would have been different.

Remember, even in the best year of Nadal's career in 2010 which also happened to be Fed's worse year since 2003 Fed still won rather comfortably in the final (6-1 final set), remember this is a 29 year old Fed vs Nadal in his absolute peak.

The low bounce and indoor conditions at YEC take away Nadal's main weapon against Fed, it's hardly a surprise he struggles to beat him (or even take a set) in those conditions.

Of course if Fed sticks around till 2016 I have little doubt Nadal will beat him at WTF eventually but at their best I'd favour Fed to beat Nadal indoors 9 out of 10 times regardless.

Here's his record in the years he played
2006-2-2
2007-2-2
2009-0-3
2010-4-1

Total-8-8

Now it's possible he wasn't worn out but just played super tough opponents and just doesn't play well indoors. However he has lost to guys you think he should beat in Ferrer, Davydenko, Soderling, Tsonga and drum roll James Blake.

Click to expand...

-Ferrer has beaten Nadal in both HC slams and his only masters title is indoor Paris.

-Davy has Nadal's number on HC, their H2H is 5-1 on that surface so that's hardly a surprising loss (quite the opposite actually).

-Soderling beat Nadal at WTF the same year he also beat him at FO so he was obviously tough for Nadal to handle that year (in 2009) and for a long time Soderling was considered to be an indoor specialist (certainly more comfortable in those conditions than Nadal).

-Tsonga is a big server, losing to a big server indoors is hardly something I'd call a shock loss.

-James Blake was always a tough opponent for Nadal on HC and he was playing the tennis of his life in 2006, it was an expected loss (and not even a close match).

Aside from maybe Tsonga and Ferrer I didn't really expect Nadal to beat any of those players at YEC/WTF at the times that he faced them, against Ferrer I actually thought it was roughly 50-50 (Ferrer was in excellent form at YEC and has beaten Nadal in USO that year).

In the Open Era along Rosewall won the French Open, two Australian Opens and one US Open. That's pretty big tournaments won on big stages. He also won the WCT championships in 71 and 72 over Laver and that essentially was a big time major. Rosewall was born in 1934. The open era started in 1968.

Click to expand...

Yes I know, he won everywhere bar Wimbledon regularly. Everywhere bar the biggest tournament of them all.

In the Wimbledon final of 1970 he lost in five sets to John Newcombe on grass. Newk was perhaps the best grass player in the world. In 1974 he just got destroyed by Jimmy Connors at his best but he did defeat Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in that tournament to reach the final.

Click to expand...

1974 was a year I can excuse him for losing in the final, aged 39 and against Connors who was just a completely new type of player from what Rosewall and his generation had faced before.

Sometimes I do think this stuff about not winning a tournament is overrated. I think the important thing is that great players prove that they can win and be very strong on all surfaces. Certainly Rosewall has more than proven he can win on grass.

Click to expand...

I know what you are saying but I slightly disagree - i.e. you would presumably demote Sampras because he was relatively poor on clay, despite him dominating all other surfaces. Yet his overall record, including winning a record 7 Wimbledons, demands for me that he be placed above Rosewall.

Federer is for example a super clay court player as is Novak Djokovic. Federer has won one French but would he be any less a player if he never won the French?

Click to expand...

Let's put it this way - I consider Federer GOAT, just ahead of Laver. If Federer hadn't won the French, I would still have Laver top.

So yes - if we are talking about being GOAT - not just one of the greats, but GOAT, you have to have won all four slams (assuming you participated enough everywhere to have done so - i.e. can't hold it against Borg at the AO, Gonzales at most of the slams). It's not good enough to reach 4 finals and never win at a particular slam, and expect to be ranked No 1 all-time (this argument goes for Borg and his failures at the US Open as well).

Look at Navratilova, she took many years to finally win the US Open. But given the extra opportunities she finally won it. Rosewall didn't get that chance as did Pancho Gonzalez by the way.

Click to expand...

Pancho is a different case to Rosewall. He missed even more of his career to the pros, and was not good enough (i.e. too young or old) to be a contender at Wimbledon when he was allowed to compete. Therefore I can make concessions for him that I cannot for Rosewall. I say it again - if a man makes 4 Wimbledon finals and does not win a single one, he cannot be GOAT.

I don't consider Pancho the GOAT either by the way, because he never won a clay court major in the pros. He was essentially a Sampras equivalent but played in a weaker period of mens' tennis with a divided tour.

There's absolutely no maybe about it, Fed is just plain better than Nadal indoors, disregarding the lopsided H2H in Fed's favour in those conditions, Fed has 20 indoor titles to Nadal's one and 6 YEC titles to Nadal's one final.

Now regarding their encounters indoors, yes Nadal might have done better if they played in the middle of the year but I sincerely doubt the final outcome of those matches would have been different.

Remember, even in the best year of Nadal's career in 2010 which also happened to be Fed's worse year since 2003 Fed still won rather comfortably in the final (6-1 final set), remember this is a 29 year old Fed vs Nadal in his absolute peak.

The low bounce and indoor conditions at YEC take away Nadal's main weapon against Fed, it's hardly a surprise he struggles to beat him (or even take a set) in those conditions.

Of course if Fed sticks around till 2016 I have little doubt Nadal will beat him at WTF eventually but at their best I'd favour Fed to beat Nadal indoors 9 out of 10 times regardless.

-Ferrer has beaten Nadal in both HC slams and his only masters title is indoor Paris.

-Davy has Nadal's number on HC, their H2H is 5-1 on that surface so that's hardly a surprising loss (quite the opposite actually).

-Soderling beat Nadal at WTF the same year he also beat him at FO so he was obviously tough for Nadal to handle that year (in 2009) and for a long time Soderling was considered to be an indoor specialist (certainly more comfortable in those conditions than Nadal).

-Tsonga is a big server, losing to a big server indoors is hardly something I'd call a shock loss.

-James Blake was always a tough opponent for Nadal on HC and he was playing the tennis of his life in 2006, it was an expected loss (and not even a close match).

Aside from maybe Tsonga and Ferrer I didn't really expect Nadal to beat any of those players at YEC/WTF at the times that he faced them, against Ferrer I actually thought it was roughly 50-50 (Ferrer was in excellent form at YEC and has beaten Nadal in USO that year).

Click to expand...

I would agree with you on every point. I was curious what Nadal's record was in the World Tour Final. I was surprised it was that bad. Ferrer to me seems to me to be the type of player who will trouble Nadal on surfaces aside from clay. Always enjoyed Ferrer's game.

I would agree with you on every point. I was curious what Nadal's record was in the World Tour Final. I was surprised it was that bad. Ferrer to me seems to me to be the type of player who will trouble Nadal on surfaces aside from clay. Always enjoyed Ferrer's game.

Click to expand...

I think a great misconception about Ferrer is that he's a CC specialist, some of his qualities do indeed translate well to clay (fitness, speed, anticipation, strong competitive spirit etc.) but I strongly feel that he plays his best tennis on faster surfaces when he can hit through the court easier with his FH, his performance against Berdych at DC final this year was exquisite (and I think Berdych would have put up a much bigger fight if they played on clay).

People didn't take notice but he also improved his netplay and DTL BH over the years, I like Ferrer as well.

Let's be fair, Rosewall was a teen when he lost his first two finals and 35 and 39 when he lost the last two. In the Open Era along Rosewall won the French Open, two Australian Opens and one US Open. That's pretty big tournaments won on big stages. He also won the WCT championships in 71 and 72 over Laver and that essentially was a big time major. Rosewall was born in 1934. The open era started in 1968.

In the Wimbledon final of 1970 he lost in five sets to John Newcombe on grass. Newk was perhaps the best grass player in the world. In 1974 he just got destroyed by Jimmy Connors at his best but he did defeat Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in that tournament to reach the final.

The odds are very high that Rosewall imo would have won at least one Wimbledon in the years he was dominant. No one can prove it of course but I believe there was great chance.

Sometime I do think this stuff about not winning a tournament is overrated. I think the important thing is that great players prove that they can win and be very strong on all surfaces. Certainly Rosewall has more than proven he can win on grass.

Federer is for example a super clay court player as is Novak Djokovic. Federer has won one French but would he be any less a player if he never won the French? Don't think so. I think Djokovic is a super clay court player. I would not hold it against Djokovic if he never won the French.

Look at how many years it took Martina Navratilova to finally win the US Open. But given the extra opportunities she finally won it. Rosewall didn't get that chance as did Pancho Gonzalez by the way.

Kiki's going to get me for this but Jan Kodes won Wimbledon, Rosewall did not, does that make Kodes a better player or a better pressure player than Rosewall?

Click to expand...

Kiki won´t get mad since Kiki knows Rosewall was a better player than Kodes and, specially on fast grass.

In fact, Rosewall won more grass court titles than guys like Arthur Ashe and certainly Stan Smith, who won Wimbledon.To name a few...

I agree with your post above.by 1962, 1963 or 1964 Rosewall would be heavily favoured to win at Wimbledon.From 1965 to 1967 he still could but I clearly give the edge to Laver.

Djokovic and Nadal (off clay) at their peaks still have trouble with slower less explosive ******* yet they have higher peak play? Federer has bagelled Nadal on all 3 surfaces, and has infact bagelled both Djokovic and Nadal in the last year.

How did you decide they both rank above him? Nadal's win percentage off clay is far worse than Federer's against largely the same field. And Djokovic still has a lot of trouble with Federer even now.

Not to mention Rosewall's 4 of his 8 slams were from the amateur, and that even has less value than any of the 3 pro majors.

Click to expand...

The problem with new - current fans is not they are biassed or not, because an old time fan can be just as much biassed.it is its lack of perspective.

1/Rosewall won as many if not more majors than the rest of players, including Laver,Sampras and Federer if you add pro and amateurs

2/he did so while facing the toughest opposition ever.Prime Hoad,Sedgman,Trabert,Gonzales and Segura in the late 50´s and peak Laver ( and peak Newcombe,Roche,Ashe,Nastase and some others) from the 60´s and 70´s.

You and many others should put things in perspective and you´d at least have some respect for him.

Djokovic and Nadal (off clay) at their peaks still have trouble with slower less explosive ******* yet they have higher peak play?

Click to expand...

Nadal is 18-10 vs Federer, 8-2 in slams, 3-2 in slams off of clay (while 5-0 overall), 5-2 lifetime on outdoor hard courts, including 2-1 when peak Federer played 17-19 year old Nadal (and the only loss being a huge choke by 18 year old Nadal from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 up). Head to head play is the absolute last place you want to go when comparing Federer to Nadal.

As for Federer in Djokovic if we declare Fedreer's prime as 2004-2007, and presume Djokovic's will end up being 2011-2014 or so, Federer was having mighty problems with and often losing to Djokovic in 08/09 when he was closer to his prime than Djokovic was. In fact their H2H from late 2007-end of 2009 was 4-4.

Presumably you mean because he missed many years of opportunity? Of course, if everyone had played at Wimbledon, he would have had to face Hoad, Gonzales et al every year so no guarantee he would have won it in any case, but that's not the point...

The point is that in the Wimbledon finals he did reach, he had a 0-4 record. I simply cannot accept that someone who has such a record in the final of the game's biggest tournament can be GOAT. Irrespective of whether he would have won in other years he was banned.

If you are GOAT, you win the biggest matches at the biggest venues. Of course even the greatest players can lose to other greats in finals, but to reach 4 Wimbledon finals and not win a single one....you simply cannot call such a man GOAT. I don't care what else he achieved in his career...

Click to expand...

You "don't care". Very ignorant.

Rosewall's four finals are not a blame. They underline how great this player is.

Rosewall lost 13 years at Wimbledon, among them his very best ones.

If you blame Muscles you should realize that also the more acknowledged Laver did NOT win at Wimbledon at 20, 22, 36 and 40.

Rosewall beat Laver twice in pro majors on grass, every time decisively. Why not believe he could also had won in 1960 or 61 or 62 or 63 or 64 or 65 at Wimbledon?

If a player reaches 4 finals at W. at such a young and old age, it's probable (but of course not sure) he would have fared even better when in his prime!

Let's be fair, Rosewall was a teen when he lost his first two finals and 35 and 39 when he lost the last two. In the Open Era along Rosewall won the French Open, two Australian Opens and one US Open. That's pretty big tournaments won on big stages. He also won the WCT championships in 71 and 72 over Laver and that essentially was a big time major. Rosewall was born in 1934. The open era started in 1968.

In the Wimbledon final of 1970 he lost in five sets to John Newcombe on grass. Newk was perhaps the best grass player in the world. In 1974 he just got destroyed by Jimmy Connors at his best but he did defeat Roscoe Tanner, John Newcombe and Stan Smith in that tournament to reach the final.

The odds are very high that Rosewall imo would have won at least one Wimbledon in the years he was dominant. No one can prove it of course but I believe there was great chance.

Sometime I do think this stuff about not winning a tournament is overrated. I think the important thing is that great players prove that they can win and be very strong on all surfaces. Certainly Rosewall has more than proven he can win on grass.

Federer is for example a super clay court player as is Novak Djokovic. Federer has won one French but would he be any less a player if he never won the French? Don't think so. I think Djokovic is a super clay court player. I would not hold it against Djokovic if he never won the French.

Look at how many years it took Martina Navratilova to finally win the US Open. But given the extra opportunities she finally won it. Rosewall didn't get that chance as did Pancho Gonzalez by the way.

Kiki's going to get me for this but Jan Kodes won Wimbledon, Rosewall did not, does that make Kodes a better player or a better pressure player than Rosewall?

Click to expand...

Thanks, pc1.

Phoenix wrote that Rosewall would had have troubles against Hoad and Gonzalez. But both were pretty old (and Hoad injured) when Rosewall reached his peak.

He was 21 when he lost to Hoad in 1956. And he won all the other three majors from the ages of 18 - 20, and the ages of 33-37, so his age is no excuse!

Yes I know, he won everywhere bar Wimbledon regularly. Everywhere bar the biggest tournament of them all.

1974 was a year I can excuse him for losing in the final, aged 39 and against Connors who was just a completely new type of player from what Rosewall and his generation had faced before.

I can't excuse him for 1970 though.

No-one can prove it and it's also irrelevant. He was 0-4 in the finals of the biggest tournament in the game.

I know what you are saying but I slightly disagree - i.e. you would presumably demote Sampras because he was relatively poor on clay, despite him dominating all other surfaces. Yet his overall record, including winning a record 7 Wimbledons, demands for me that he be placed above Rosewall.

Let's put it this way - I consider Federer GOAT, just ahead of Laver. If Federer hadn't won the French, I would still have Laver top.

So yes - if we are talking about being GOAT - not just one of the greats, but GOAT, you have to have won all four slams (assuming you participated enough everywhere to have done so - i.e. can't hold it against Borg at the AO, Gonzales at most of the slams). It's not good enough to reach 4 finals and never win at a particular slam, and expect to be ranked No 1 all-time (this argument goes for Borg and his failures at the US Open as well).

He can never be GOAT if he hasn't won the French though. Not when Federer and Laver have won all four slams.

Pancho is a different case to Rosewall. He missed even more of his career to the pros, and was not good enough (i.e. too young or old) to be a contender at Wimbledon when he was allowed to compete. Therefore I can make concessions for him that I cannot for Rosewall. I say it again - if a man makes 4 Wimbledon finals and does not win a single one, he cannot be GOAT.

I don't consider Pancho the GOAT either by the way, because he never won a clay court major in the pros. He was essentially a Sampras equivalent but played in a weaker period of mens' tennis with a divided tour.

Click to expand...

It's interesting: You make concessions for Gonzalez (and I agree) but NOT for Rosewall who succeeded much more at W. than Pancho...

The age issue works for Pancho but not for Muscles? Interesting view.

May I remember you that Rosewall reached his peak not at 21 but at about 25, 26? And he was about 6 (six) years past his prime when he beat Roche and lost to Newcombe in five after gruelling singles and doubles matches!

Is this so difficult to understand?

There is a tiny difference between Borg and Rosewall: Borg played US Open in his prime while Rosewall not...

Djokovic and Nadal (off clay) at their peaks still have trouble with slower less explosive ******* yet they have higher peak play? Federer has bagelled Nadal on all 3 surfaces, and has infact bagelled both Djokovic and Nadal in the last year.

How did you decide they both rank above him? Nadal's win percentage off clay is far worse than Federer's against largely the same field. And Djokovic still has a lot of trouble with Federer even now.

Click to expand...

Many of their matches were played when Federer was in his prime and Nadal and Djokovic not.

I doubt that a peak Federer was stronger or at least equal than 2011 Djoker.

The problem with new - current fans is not they are biassed or not, because an old time fan can be just as much biassed.it is its lack of perspective.

1/Rosewall won as many if not more majors than the rest of players, including Laver,Sampras and Federer if you add pro and amateurs

2/he did so while facing the toughest opposition ever.Prime Hoad,Sedgman,Trabert,Gonzales and Segura in the late 50´s and peak Laver ( and peak Newcombe,Roche,Ashe,Nastase and some others) from the 60´s and 70´s.

You and many others should put things in perspective and you´d at least have some respect for him.

Nadal is 18-10 vs Federer, 8-2 in slams, 3-2 in slams off of clay (while 5-0 overall), 5-2 lifetime on outdoor hard courts, including 2-1 when peak Federer played 17-19 year old Nadal (and the only loss being a huge choke by 18 year old Nadal from 2 sets to 0 and 5-3 up). Head to head play is the absolute last place you want to go when comparing Federer to Nadal.

As for Federer in Djokovic if we declare Fedreer's prime as 2004-2007, and presume Djokovic's will end up being 2011-2014 or so, Federer was having mighty problems with and often losing to Djokovic in 08/09 when he was closer to his prime than Djokovic was. In fact their H2H from late 2007-end of 2009 was 4-4.

Click to expand...

Nadal/Agassi. I could not have explained the matter better or equal to you.

1/Rosewall won as many if not more majors than the rest of players, including Laver,Sampras and Federer if you add pro and amateurs

Click to expand...

No he doesn't. Rosewall won 8 slams(4 were from the amateur) while Federer won 17 modern slams. Rosewall won 15 pro majors but Federer won 6 WTFs. Overall, Fed's slams/WTFs have more value than all of Rosewall's 23 slams/pro majors combined.

No he doesn't. Rosewall won 8 slams(4 were from the amateur) while Federer won 17 modern slams. Rosewall won 15 pro majors but Federer won 6 WTFs. Overall, Fed's slams/WTFs have more value than all of Rosewall's 23 slams/pro majors combined.

Click to expand...

Not to be contradictory, but just whom did Federer beat in all these slams? The best players money could buy?
Rosewall and Hoad had to beat giants from round 1, no easy matches like in the early rounds of a modern slam.

Not to be contradictory, but just whom did Federer beat in all these slams? The best players money could buy?Rosewall and Hoad had to beat giants from round 1, no easy matches like in the early rounds of a modern slam.

Click to expand...

that shouldn't be a negative. Sport has grown, more players on the tour, different, lower ranked guys at the beginning stages, if top guys keep winning, no biggie, they can meet each other as appropriate in some latter stages.

Feather, I'm protesting that you insinuate I would write for the sake of irritating others. That's very mean. You and others just cannot imagine that I really believe what I write and rank. That's not my fault!